1 / 23

More sliding window detection: Discriminative part-based models

More sliding window detection: Discriminative part-based models. Many slides based on P . Felzenszwalb. Challenge: Generic object detection. Pedestrian detection. Features: Histograms of oriented gradients (HOG)

orsen
Download Presentation

More sliding window detection: Discriminative part-based models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. More sliding window detection:Discriminative part-based models Many slides based on P. Felzenszwalb

  2. Challenge: Generic object detection

  3. Pedestrian detection • Features: Histograms of oriented gradients (HOG) • Partition image into 8x8 pixel blocks and compute histogram of gradient orientations in each block • Learn a pedestrian template using a linear support vector machine • At test time, convolve feature map with template HOG feature map Detector response map Template N. Dalal and B. Triggs, Histograms of Oriented Gradients for Human Detection, CVPR 2005

  4. Discriminative part-based models Root filter Part filters Deformation weights P. Felzenszwalb, R. Girshick, D. McAllester, D. Ramanan, Object Detection with Discriminatively Trained Part Based Models, PAMI 32(9), 2010

  5. Object hypothesis • Multiscale model: the resolution of part filters is twice the resolution of the root

  6. Scoring an object hypothesis • The score of a hypothesis is the sum of filter scores minus the sum of deformation costs Subwindow features Displacements Deformation weights Filters

  7. Scoring an object hypothesis • The score of a hypothesis is the sum of filter scores minus the sum of deformation costs • Recall: pictorial structures Subwindow features Displacements Deformation weights Filters Deformation cost Matching cost

  8. Scoring an object hypothesis • The score of a hypothesis is the sum of filter scores minus the sum of deformation costs Subwindow features Displacements Deformation weights Filters Concatenation of filter and deformation weights Concatenation of subwindow features and displacements

  9. Detection • Define the score of each root filter location as the score given the best part placements:

  10. Detection • Define the score of each root filter location as the score given the best part placements: • Efficient computation: generalized distance transforms • For each “default” part location, find the best-scoring displacement Head filter responses Distance transform Head filter

  11. Detection

  12. Matching result

  13. Training • Training data consists of images with labeled bounding boxes • Need to learn the filters and deformation parameters

  14. Training • Our classifier has the form • w are model parameters, z are latent hypotheses • Latent SVM training: • Initialize w and iterate: • Fix w and find the best z for each training example (detection) • Fix z and solve for w (standard SVM training) • Issue: too many negative examples • Do “data mining” to find “hard” negatives

  15. Car model Component 1 Component 2

  16. Car detections

  17. Person model

  18. Person detections

  19. Cat model

  20. Cat detections

  21. Bottle model

  22. More detections

  23. Quantitative results (PASCAL 2008) • 7 systems competed in the 2008 challenge • Out of 20 classes, first place in 7 classes and second place in 8 classes Bicycles Person Bird Proposed approach Proposed approach Proposed approach

More Related